This may seem to be a bit of a stretch to be making a comparison between the governing body of the United States and a portion of the social media, but there really is more to it than one might suspect at first glance. Let’s look at some of the ways they are similar and then some of the ways they are different.

Similarities:


ñ Facebook is always changing how things operate. This is just like Congress and the tax code. What was deductible last year, may not be this year. It’s hard to keep up with the changes.

Facebook and Congress both have much more access to your private information than you are likely to be comfortable with.
There are special interest groups vying for your attention and support along the margins of facebook, just like the lobbyists that are continually trying to gain the support of congressmen.

Facebook continually insists that its purpose is to simply give its users what they want, just as Congress says that they are attempting to legislate the will of the people.
Opinion polls don’t really matter in Congress, any more than they do on facebook. They’re going to do what they want anyway.
Verbally fighting between the right and the left goes on in both places on a regular basis.
Voting’ takes place in both, although, with facebook, it is in the form of clicking ‘like’.
Opinions are flaunted daily in both places, as well as expressions of outrage.
The members of facebook could all vote for a change and have it vetoed by the leadership of facebook, just as Congress can pass legislation and have it vetoed by the President.

Differences:
We do elect the leaders in Congress, but facebook…no one really knows who is running this virtual world.
Congress takes breaks and vacations, but facebook is always there.

Congress is funded by our tax dollars and facebook is funded by advertising dollars.
You’re actually more likely to get a response from a complaint written to your congressman than to a complaint written to Facebook.
People have been frustrated with Congress much longer than facebook, and they’ll get over their frustrations with facebook much sooner than their frustrations with Congress.

Congress can send our soldiers to fight in other countries, while facebook lets you choose your own battles.

More citizens are actively involved with facebook than they are with Congress.
Congress revolves around the give and take among members, which hasn’t been working very well, as of late. On facebook, you can each do your own thing without having to try and win over others to your point of view.

There are just about as many similarities as there are differences between these two well-known entities. They both affect our daily lives much more than we would like to admit.

source: internetservice.net

Read More......

The subject of network neutrality on the web is a hotly debated issue with the potential to drastically alter the future of the internet. Net neutrality laws as currently written address three key issues: transparency; no blocking; and no unreasonable discrimination . Opponents argue for tiered services that distribute the cost of services according to usage. In either case, the effects on internet service providers would be significant. Here are 10 ways in which net neutrality laws affect your ISP:


Neutrality laws would require transparency among ISP’s, to disclose their network management policies. In other words, your ISP needs to be up front about pricing, network performance, and how it provides access to services without discrimination.

They would ban unreasonable blocking or discrimination by fixed-line providers, but show more leniency toward wireless networks. Wireless providers would only be prohibited from blocking applications that compete with their own, but would be free to block others.

ISP’s would not be permitted to favor their own applications or services over those offered by their competitors. Consumers would be able to choose those apps and services they preferred, regardless of which ISP they used.
There would be no tiered services. Sites owned by large corporations could not gain a competitive advantage over smaller competitors by paying for faster load speeds.

An ISP could not pick and choose how to distribute its available bandwidth. As in the 2007 case of Comcast blocking P2P sites during peak times, an ISP would be prohibited from blocking specific sites for the sake of improving network performance.
An internet service provider could still block illegal or harmful content (child pornography, spam, malware, etc) or slow down its entire network to preserve bandwidth under the proposed new laws.

Pricing of ISP services could be significantly impacted. For instance, if an ISP was also a video content provider, it might be induced into offering deeply discounted packages in order to compete with third party competitors.

As argued by net neutrality opponents, an inability to set up tiered services or to assess additional charges for access to third-party services would likely mean that your ISP would pass along their loss of revenue in the form of higher initial access fees. So you may not have to pay extra for access to Netflix once you’re logged onto the web, but your ISP may charge you a higher subscription rate before you can log on.
Your ISP could potentially be in a position to alter the e-commerce landscape at large. That is, if neutrality laws don’t pass, and your ISP is able to charge more for tiered services, those who cannot afford to pay for faster access would no longer be able to compete with those who can.

Ultimately, net neutrality will determine whether your ISP can itself compete on a level playing field where consumers can choose freely between its services and those of its competitors.

source: phonetvinternet.com

Read More......